[This article appeared in the
Journal of Social,
Political and Economic Studies, Spring 1995, pp. 93-128.]

RETHINKING THE AMERICAN DREAM: REACTIONS OF THE MEDIA

Dwight D. Murphey

Wichita State
University

The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in
American Life

Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray

The Free Press, 1994

The Bell Curve is a serious work that deals with important
subjects and that merits the attention it has received. Indeed, it challenges
the entire structure of contemporary American social policy to the extent that
this is based on multiculturalism, affirmative action and the concept of the
liberal welfare society. Coming at a time when the vast Federal budget deficit –
largely the product of welfare spending - has become a matter of national
concern, it is not surprising that the book has sold hundreds of thousands of
copies. Nor is it surprising that it has been under heavy attack in a media
that has in recent decades fairly consistently favored multiculturalism,
welfare spending and affirmative action designed to remove inequalities of
income and influence among the diverse ethnic groups which constitute
present-day America.

In
The Bell Curve, the late Richard Herrnstein of
Harvard University joins Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute in
drawing attention to what they see as the "cognitive partitioning" of
American society. They say that the more highly intelligent members of
contemporary American society attend the top universities (80% of the highest
IQ quartile now attend college, whereas only 55% of that quartile were able to
attend college in 1950) and are becoming centered in a few occupations. By
contrast, those of low intelligence are forming an underclass steeped in a
variety of social pathologies. The authors believe that modern technology is
placing increasing importance on intelligence in the workforce, and indicate
that in a modern society there is less demand for those of lower intelligence,
who in the past would have been fruitfully engaged in useful laboring
activities.

This is even more significant,
the authors hold, because intelligence is largely inherited, and costly social
engineering schemes have failed to succeed in helping individuals of lower
intelligence find a creative place in the modern world. Because the book is
designed to emphasize this aspect of the problem of poverty, much of it is
devoted to a review of scientific studies of intelligence, IQ tests, and of the
bearing of genetics on cognitive ability. What has fired criticism the most,
however, is that two chapters discuss the evidence for ethnic differences in
intelligence. These present data that show that blacks on average perform
significantly lower in IQ than whites and orientals. The authors observe that
affirmative action has removed barriers that prevented higher-intelligence
blacks from advancing in society, and that both blacks and whites of higher
intelligence are moving into a meritocratic upperclass. This, they say, has
left blacks of lower intelligence to stultify in welfare-based ghettos. To
authors Herrnstein and Murray, affirmative action plans are no longer useful,
since those who remain at the lower levels of society do not have the inborn
intelligence to succeed in a meritocracy. They suggest that some form of
benevolent conservative system of welfare is the only solution to this
predicament.

This review will consist of two main parts: a critique of
The
Bell Curve by this author, followed by an extensive analysis of the media
reaction to the book during the first four months following its appearance.

This
Author's Critique

While the book makes a number of valuable points, it seems
to this reviewer to be excellent in much the same way that a camel, arguably
one of nature's more functional and yet aesthetically least satisfying
creatures, is excellent. Some subjects, such as intelligence and the statistics
that go into studying it, primarily reflecting the psychometric work of Richard
Herrnstein, are discussed extensively. Because their prominence is so
disproportionate to the rest of the work, these may be likened to the humps on
a camel's back. In their effort to bring this aspect of the modern dilemma to
the attention of their readers, other subjects that are important to the
analysis of the problems facing modern American society are hardly discussed at
all. "Cognitive partitioning," as the theme that seeks to tie it all
together, seems, like a camel's spindly legs, too insubstantial to support the
humps' great bulk.

To be specific, Herrnstein and Murray seek to demonstrate
that low intelligence correlates with the population of an increasingly
menacing, genetically-determined, underclass in the United States, and the book
contains a series of chapters about specific social problems in which it is
shown that each problem correlates with low intelligence. It is worth noting
that these chapters deliberately do not pertain to blacks, since the authors
wanted to show that their analysis was not centered on the racial differences
in IQ that they mention later. Regression analysis, the authors say, shows that
intelligence is a cause of most, if not all, of these problems.

Without challenging the authors' emphasis on the importance
of an appropriate level of intelligence to cope with the increasing sophistication
of many job-related tasks as America moves into the future, what needs to be
noticed is that such a correlation by itself is in no way the same thing as a
full consideration of the causative factors that have since 1965 led many
people of lower intelligence to act as they do. The overall level of IQ did not
drop precipitously for any group within the United States during the
half-decade between 1965 and 1970, but the level of behavior certainly did. The
analysis of those other causative factors would require investigation into the ideology of
victimization, the impact of moral relativism, the disincentives of welfare, the
pathologies of the "therapeutic state," the decline of the family and
of true community - most, if not all, of which received serious attention in
Murray's earlier work entitled Losing Ground, but which receive only passing
mention here. This book concentrates on the role of intelligence and on the
degree to which intelligence is inherited and is hence largely immutable and unresponsive
to the expensive environmental remedies attempted by government over the past
three or four decades.

In American courts, juries are instructed that one thing is
a cause of another if the second "would not have occurred but for the occurrence
of the first." Applying this in the context of The Bell Curve, it is
possible to say that the pathologies of the underclass would not exist if it
were not for its members' lower intelligence. But this does not mean that there
are not a number of other causal agents, such as those listed above, that also
constitute "but-for causes." There is compelling reason to think that
but for the ideological turn toward pathological behavior that the United
States took in the mid-1960s, the members of American society with relatively low intelligence could for the
most part still comport themselves as good citizens. To say this is not to say
anything that Murray doesn't know himself. It is just that the book places so
much emphasis on intelligence, as part of spelling out so thoroughly
Herrnstein's work, that these other, perhaps more important, causal factors are
given little attention. To the extent these other causal factors are discussed,
it is in the realm of moral philosophy, not of the empirico-mathematical
science that the authors apply to intelligence.

The
nature of the theme

Because experience has shown that book reviewers are
sometimes lazy and don't even read the book they are reviewing, this reviewer
wondered as he read The Bell Curve whether many commentators would separate
themselves enough from the book's elaborate discussion of statistics and
intelligence to even notice the overall theme. It has been a pleasant surprise
that many have.

The theme points to the occurrence of an on-going
"cognitive partitioning" in American society. Brought on by rapidly
increasing technology, it is a process that separates a super-intelligent
"cognitive elite" from the mass of ordinary people. These in turn are
separated from a growing underclass that is drained of intelligence to the
point of becoming a pathological "critical mass." The partitioning
simultaneously threatens democracy with its growing class stratification and
points ahead to an increasing assault on civilized life by members of the
underclass.

Taken on its face, this appears important. So why do I call
it "insubstantial"? For three reasons:

.
Because Herrnstein and Murray give the theme only truncated
treatment. Until the final chapter, the reader is left to wonder, "how
does all of this about intelligence fit into anything?" The authors also
speak of the partitioning without offering much by way of solutions. They
appear to have subordinated the general theme to their extensive discussion of
the specifics about intelligence.

.
Because the authors' suggestion that a cognitive elite may arise, centered
in the professions and technical trades, when stated forebodingly, is not
convincing. As Ernest van den Haag pointed out in a generally favorable article
in National Review, there would be nothing necessarily exclusive about it; it
does nothing to make impossible the success of countless other people, albeit
somewhat less than geniuses, who can make fortunes in the many other pursuits
of life and thereby come to belong, also, to the affluent "elite."
The great wealth made by many ball players and entertainment personalities
comes to mind, but a moment's reflection makes it clear that there are
countless other possibilities for those who might be able to make up with character, energy and diverse talents for what they may lack in genius. The
elite will be neither small nor exclusive. Herrnstein and Murray could, of
course, respond that they are not claiming that their "cognitive
elite" is to be regarded as identical to the affluent elite.

.
Because the book is not fully persuasive, either, in its discussion
of the necessary nature of their "underclass." As we know from the
United States' experience prior to the mid-1960s, there is nothing about low
intelligence that condemns the less intelligent to less than a productive,
civilized existence. True, it conduces to it in several ways, not the least of
which is the foreshortened "time perspective" that Edward Banfield
talked about a few years ago in The Unheavenly City. But a reversal of the
other causative factors that have since the 1960s led to the emergence of a
"menacing" underclass - alienated ideology, moral relativism,
overweening paternalism, the decline of family, etc. - would make the situation
far less apocalyptic and would take away much of the ill effects of
"cognitive partitioning." Murray knows this himself, and so devotes
attention to an alternative vision of society along neoconservative lines,
favoring, as Irving Kristol has, a conservative welfare state (i.e., one whose
redistributive programs reward acceptable rather than pathological behavior).
The addition of IQ and "cognitive partitioning" to the equation has
added a causal ground for pessimism, but one that is not nearly so controlling
as the book's emphasis makes it seem. Murray's other writing is in many ways a
better statement of the overall situation. The weakness of this over-emphasis
on differences in intelligence has strengthened the hand of reviewers dedicated
to the concept of biological egalitarianism. The Bell Curve has stimulated
violent controversy, with many egalitarians resorting to open abuse and to the demonization of both the book and the researchers whose work on intelligence
and heredity has been cited in it.

The Bell Curve is, indeed, the work of two very
different authors (which has led to my analogy to the awkwardness of a camel).
Herrnstein, who died of lung cancer in September 1994 just before the book was
released, was an empirico-mathematical social scientist from Harvard in the
area of psychometrics; Murray is a social philosopher and cultural commentator from the American Enterprise Institute. The
result of their merger goes into great detail about the psychometric evaluation
of intelligence, including even some excellent instruction to the reader on the
basics of statistics. This reflects Herrnstein. It is all placed in a context
of social philosophy, but without leaving enough space to elaborate on that
complex topic sufficiently. That is Murray's part. One way to look
at it is that Murray has performed a valuable service of providing a vehicle
that brings the implications of Herrnstein's psychometrics to wide public
attention. It has, in addition, achieved other valuable ends.

Upholding
freedom of inquiry

A few of the commentaries on the book, written by those who
find it ideologically compelling to admit no possibility that men are not all
born biologically equal, have bordered on hysteria. As we will see in our later
review here of the early literature, these have criticized the book as having
the potential for reawakening what they portray as Nazi-like racism. Their
point is valid enough as a reminder that "the price of liberty is eternal
vigilance," but otherwise such fears, in the context of a work of serious
research and thought, should be seen for what they are: a form of hyperbole that
seeks to foreclose inquiry. If scholars must perceive the Nazi shadow every
time they speak honestly about race, a society is in serious trouble.

One of the most valuable contributions of
The Bell Curve
is that it runs counter to that taboo. By its very existence, it cries outfor freedom of inquiry. The question is
raised, as Nathan Glazer (to paraphrase him) did in The New Republic,
"Why bring up these issues? They are better left unmentioned, unstudied;
and to the extent they are not, society should impress a taboo upon them!"
What is most important about this is that it raises again the issues that were
once thought to have been settled when modern Western civilization came to
embrace the outlook of the open society. It was just two hundred years ago that
the delightful English conversationalist Samuel Johnson could
argue that "every society has a right to preserve public peace and order,
and therefore has a good right to prohibit the propagation of opinions which
have a dangerous tendency ... No member of society has a right to teach any
doctrine contrary to what that society holds to be true." No doubt there
are a number of social cements that need to be preserved to maintain even a
free society, but there is great value in holding fast to the faith that the
inquiring mind is one of the principal pillars of freedom, both as a means and
an end.

Implications
for the United States' growing system of minority preferences

There are indications that a substantial number of Americans
now sense that what is done in the name of "civil rights" has betrayed
its initial moral premises and has become an
ideological-political-opportunistic "con game." The Bell Curve strikes a blow to the myths that underlie this untoward extension. It is almost
certainly this, far more than a genuine apprehension of any impending Nazism,
that causes the greatest apprehension within the multiculturalist Left.

Prior to the civil rights movement that followed World War
II, American society lived with a form of "cultural exceptionalism."White Americans generally believed quite
sincerely in the principles of a free society, which include "equality
under the law" and a willingness to judge each person on his merits. But
during the Progressive movement around the turn of the century and for several
years thereafter it was felt that historical circumstances, coming out of the
existence of slavery and its aftermath, justified the compartmentalization that
was reflected in the concept that was then known as "equal but separate."

As is known, this came under the most powerful moral attack
during the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Blacks were no longer
to be treated as an exception; it was imperative to make universal the
principles of legal equality and individual merit. The consensus for those values was so strong that
they seemed self-evident to most Americans, who went so far as to impose upon
themselves a system of legislation commanding individuals in the great run of
life's activities to judge people by their merits and not to make race any part
of their criteria for decision. Fraternity was to be backed by the police
power. The United States was to be a color-blind society.

It wasn't long, however, before liberal ideology swept the
country past that. The issue of color-blindness became muddied by the presence
of "de facto residuals" of the earlier social order. The desire to
overcome those residuals suggested compensatory preferences, which themselves
would suggest, once again, a form of "cultural exceptionalism." But
the preferences didn't long retain their character as temporary expedients to
return the United States to a truly color-blind society. Instead, the ideology,
now confident of its power, came to embrace "multiculturalism" and
the "benefits of diversity." The idea of color-blindness went out of
fashion, except for whites for whom it remained obligatory, among the
"politically correct"; now people are to be advanced because of their
blackness, or their being female, or their ethnicity. It is this that amounts
to a "con game," since it transfers the moral impetus from one thing
to something else quite inconsistent with it and because it invokes a double
standard, proscribing to whites, and especially to white males, what it
encourages in others. It has led the United States into a double-track system
of rights and privileges, leaving behind a unitary system of law and of
Constitutional protections.

It is into this context that Herrnstein and Murray have come
forth to splash a bucket of cold water onto the amorous coupling.Assuming they are right - and it takes an
expert in social science methodology, which this reviewer is not, to judge that
-, what they point out is shattering:

. That the distribution of
intelligence among blacks - in a bell-shaped curve that is offset somewhat to
the left of that of the society at large - is not such as to make available
large numbers of persons who are intellectually capable of success within the cognitive
professions. There are many very intelligent blacks, but their percentage at
the higher scale of intelligence falls significantly short of matching the
percentage of blacks in the population as a whole. What this means, say, is
that if universities and government departments adopt a policy, as many are, of
hiring almost all minorities until a certain social reconstruction is achieved,
they will be competing for the same small pool of qualified individuals. This
will force them to lower their standards, will cause millions of people to look
with doubt upon the achievements of any given black, and will cause resentment
among those who, though better qualified, are displaced. The idea that such
racial preference can be indulged without adverse consequences depends upon the faith
in equal intelligence, and that is precisely what Herrnstein and Murray are
puncturing.

. That blacks in the United States
are already equal, and sometimes over-represented, in high-level positions -
and in education, occupations and wages - relative to what would be predictable
if intelligence were the criterion. The revolutionary impact of this is that it
contradicts the myth of continuing "victimization" (a new word for
the old Marxist concept of "exploitation.") The idea that a vicious
mainstream society is victimizing minorities is the glue that holds together
the ideological alliance of the Left's alienated intellectual culture with the
groups that, the intelligentsia hopes, will long relish being disaffected and
unassimilated.

Dysgenic trends

Three genetic forces, the authors say, are at work to lower
the level of intelligence in the United States: a higher birthrate within the
less intelligent underclass, a postponement of child-bearing for several years
by more intelligent women, and the nature of recent immigration, which has been
from the Third World. The first two of these forces are at work not just within
the society at large, but also within the black community, leading to a
worsening of prospects for blacks within a civilization that is increasingly
rewarding intelligence. This is a matter that might well be of constructive
concern to blacks themselves.

Of course, a discussion of anything genetic is taboo, since
an investigation of dysgenics automatically conjures up images of Hitler's
abuse of eugenics. The facts are important, however; they certainly call, as
the authors do, for at least so much as a repeal of the policies that presently
favor more babies by low-income women. The issue isn't whether the United
States should impose a draconian eugenics, but whether it should stop doing
things to encourage dysgenics.

A
call for a more humane social order

It may seem incongruous to mention it in light of the cries
that have been raised that the book, by comparing the intelligence of races, is
proto-racist, but time should be taken to notice that Herrnstein and Murray
sketch the outlines of what could be a much more humane society.
Understandably, they see few profound human satisfactions in the crumbling,
warring inner cities fostered by the custodial, therapeutic state. They offer
the alternative of a truly free society, in which people at all levels find sustenance,
warmth and "a valued place" through the local, interpersonal
processes that multiply so profusely within humanity

when government and ideology don't get in people's way.

Two criticisms of this vision are to be made by those who
take a conservative perspective. First, such persons will be inclined to argue
that the proposition that "some sort of redistribution is here to
stay" should, at the very least, be debated. There will likely be a
vigorous discussion on the Right about whether the "conservative welfare
state" favored by Murray and Herrnstein is in fact a minimal necessity.
This especially means identifying and scrutinizing its specific components,
comparing them, as libertarians and classical liberals are so wont to do, with
voluntaristic and local alternatives.

Second, Herrnstein and Murray say that the United States
must "return to the melting pot as metaphor and color blindness as the
ideal." Many people are beginning to argue that it is rapidly becoming too
late for the American people, if they care about their identity, simply to
endorse a melting pot without qualification. They have for thirty years been
flooded with immigration of non-European origin. Americans saw the melting pot
as a splendid ideal when the newcomers would melt into a high Euro-American
civilization. A reverse process whereby Euro-American civilization melts into
that of the Third World is, to those of conservative bent, another matter
entirely. The latter is what will happen unless Americans quickly form and
enforce a consensus to limit immigration. Murray and Herrnstein express concern
about the current immigration because of its dysgenic effects. In terms of
American identity, the concern will need to go further and center on the
long-term continuity of the United States culturally and politically. But this
is hardly a criticism of Herrnstein and Murray; it is too much to expect them
to have carried the dialogue that far. The issues they undertook to study are
more than enough for any two thinkers, however courageous.

No book in this reviewer's memory has done so much to
provoke so stimulating and widespread a discussion. If there were a Nobel Prize
for Freedom of Inquiry, Herrnstein and Murray would be among the leading
candidates.

Media
Reaction to The Bell Curve

The Bell Curve has proved one of the most provocative
writings of recent times. It would seem that within weeks of its publication in
October 1994, virtually everyone involved in social commentary in the United
States had something to say about it.

Since it is doubtful whether many who are interested in the
book will have had the time or the sources available to read more than a part
of that early literature, the Journal of Social, Political and Economic
Studies has benefited from a clipping service which supplied the initial
commentaries that appeared in late 1994 and early 1995 so that this article can
report on them. This survey is based on approximately 125 book reviews,
columns, articles and television commentaries that appeared in the American
media (plus a small number from England and Canada) during that period.

The media's treatment of earlier writings in similar areas
was discussed in Stanley Rothman and Mark Snyderman's book The IQ
Controversy: The Media and Public Policy (Transaction Books, 1988) and in
Roger Pearson's Race, Intelligence and Bias in Academe (Scott-Townsend
Publishers, 1991). Pearson is editor of Mankind Quarterly.

As the above critique suggests, this literature is
significant for two reasons: because the issues raised by The Bell Curve (and others), and the debate over them, are important; and because the very
publication of the book in violation of the demands of "political
correctness" in the United States in the 1990s raises vitally significant
issues of freedom of speech and of inquiry. The demands for suppression of the
book were well illustrated in February 1995 when mass protests occurred at
Rutgers University in New Jersey after it became known that the university
president, who had an long record of promoting affirmative action, had made a
comment to the faculty senate three months earlier about "genetic,
hereditary background" being a cause of the low average scores of Rutgers'
black students on the Scholastic Aptitude Test.

A warning may be in order. Although the remainder of this
article is a report on the literature rather than an evaluation, even a simple
review of it involves characterizing and classifying the commentaries. This
requires judgments about nuance and degree. To help assure being fair to each
author, we began by reading each commentary with careful attention to the
integrity of its author's view taken as a whole. The reader would need to study
the sources himself to see whether we have succeeded in that effort.

The Tone of the
Reaction: Favorable and Unfavorable.

Although it has sometimes been said that
The Bell Curve
was greeted with a firestorm of denunciation, that description is by no means
entirely correct. The reaction during the first three months covered the entire
spectrum of possible opinion, with ample representation at almost every point
along it. There were a number of favorable commentaries, including a favorable
review in the New York Review of Books, and these can be placed along a
continuum that ranges from "uncritically supportive" to
"tentatively sympathetic"; some commentaries staked out neutral ground;
and yet another continuum applies to those that were unfavorable, ranging from
"unfavorable, but reasoned" to "purely vituperative."
Perhaps because we expected a large number of denunciatory pieces and so took
them for granted, we are impressed by the volume of reasoned discussion, both
favorable and unfavorable. There is considerable civility within much of it,
resulting in an impression that a genuine national debate is occurring within
an important segment of the educated public. At the same time, significant voices urge shrouding such issues
in silence or intimidating those who dare to speak on them.

Favorable Reactions

Uncritically supportive

Because it limits itself to paraphrasing
The Bell Curve,
one review that can arguably be called "uncritically supportive" is a
column by psychology professor Richard Lynn, which appeared in the London
Times.1
Lynn was one of the sources most frequently cited in the book, and it was only
to be expected that he would report favorably, although he demonstrated his fairness by restricting his
comments primarily to informing the Times' readers of the book's content
rather than to evaluating it.

Supportive through a weighted
presentation

In this survey, it will be interesting to note the
argumentative techniques used by different writers. A favorable article by
Peter Brimelow in Forbes2
adopts a technique that is to be expected from those who are sympathetic to the
authors' position. He recounts a series of arguments against the book and
follows each with a Herrnstein-Murray rebuttal to give it the final say.

Supportive, with a reasoned basis

Several favorable critics make their discussion a reasoned
consideration of one or more issues. This would not be surprising in most
contexts, but here they are taking up issues that part of the intellectual
culture insists be off-limits. In a brief column, Kevin Lamb, an assistant
librarian for Newsweek, discusses the nature of psychometry as science,
speaks of the ad hominem attacks on Herrnstein and Murray, and explores such
issues as the measurability of intelligence, its heritability and
intractability, and the factors that, in addition to intelligence, cause
success.3 In
the New York Times Book Review, Malcolm Browne, also supportive, makes a
reasoned discussion of eugenics, suggesting that "sooner or later, society
may have to decide whether human beings have the right -- perhaps even the duty
-- to strengthen our species' cognitive defenses ...."4 Daniel Seligman in National
Review tells of the growing body of knowledge about the genetic role in
human behavior. He cites increasing assertions by scientists that such a trait as homosexuality
is biologically determined, but warns that genes create probabilities rather
than determined outcomes.5

In an article published in London, Hans Eysenck, one of
today's most prominent empirical psychologists, reviews at length the scientific
consensus supporting Herrnstein's view of the heritability of intelligence
among "the great majority of experts - psychologists, behavioral
geneticists and educationalists."6 Columnist D. J. Tice in St. Paul, Minnesota,
observes that the Herrnstein-Murray thesis "offends the essential hubris
and egalitarianism of the modern world view" and calls for a redirection of
social policy away from "the kind of help liberal society prefers to
give" (to the less intelligent).7Christopher Caldwell in The American
Spectator demonstrates a knowledge of the current literature beyond The
Bell Curve and gives an excellent and detailed summary of Herrnstein and
Murray's main points, accompanying each with intelligent reflection.8 Michael Barone, a senior
writer for U. S. News & World Report, was the author of the first
commentary in the National Review's December 5, 1994, symposium. He
focuses on how the demonstration of genetic inequalities undercuts the
rationale first for the ideology of "victimization" and then for the
"rotten" "regimes of [reverse] racial preference" that have
been developed on behalf of minorities in the United States in recent years.9

Not unsupportive, but with
criticisms

Other favorable authors include some points of disagreement
within a reasoned analysis. Conservative columnist Patrick J. Buchanan says
that intelligence is important but that other traits such as character and
courage are also keys to success.10Michael Novak
seconds this with the "wish [that] somebody would write a companion study,
as scholarly as theirs, concentrating on issues of character rather than on issues
of intelligence."11
Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post is favorable to Herrnstein
and Murray's warning about an emerging underclass, noting that "for the
last two decades it is the very liberals who so vehemently denounce Murray who
have been obsessed with race," but says that he opposes any form of multiculturalism,
even a conservative one such as he sees The Bell Curve suggesting, because he
prefers the ideal of a color-blind society. He disagrees with Herrnstein's
thesis that group differences in intelligence are rooted in genes, and adheres to the belief that environment and culture determine
intelligence, since the differences change over time.12 Economist Thomas Sowell,
a black and a supporter of the free market, is favorable and respectful, but is
persuaded by the "Flynn effect" (the belief that IQ is generally
rising with each generation) that the role of genetics is questionable. The
"Flynn effect" also suggests to Sowell there is no threat of a
dysgenic trend. He supports Herrnstein and Murray against the charge that IQ
tests are "culturally relative" by observing that people do live
within particular cultures.13

Two of the otherwise seemingly favorable authors take issue
with The Bell Curve's projections regarding the emergence of a genetically-determined
cognitive partitioning. William F. Buckley refers to Malthus and Marx and then
says that "one more grand social schema" can only provoke a smile.14Washington Times
columnist Richard Grenier points to the continuing importance of character,
judgment and common sense, and concludes that "personally, I don't think
this apocalyptic vision will ever come to pass."15

Tentatively sympathetic

The issues are so controversial that some authors treat them
with obvious diffidence. Elise Houlik interviewed Professor Robert Gordon, who
is one of the sources cited in The Bell Curve, for an in-house magazine
at The Johns Hopkins University where Gordon is employed, reporting that
"I prepared myself to meet an absolute ogre ... Instead, I found a normal,
unassuming man with a strong commitment to his research."16Book reviewer Mel
Small for the Detroit News-Free Press is temperate and friendly, but
shies clear of expressing agreement.17

Neutral Reactions

Some of the commentators express neither agreement nor
disagreement, simply trying to report the various sides of the argument. Nina
J. Easton's article in the Los Angeles Times is balanced, although the
"pull-quotes" that highlight the piece are negative. An odd thing
about her article is that she uses emotive words against both sides, apparently
reflecting a reportorial style of assumed cynicism rather than a bias against
either side.18
A fair-minded discussion from both points of view is written for The
Chronicle of Higher Education by Ellen K. Coughlin.19 Sometimes a humorous
approach is taken, as in columnist Gil Spencer's light-hearted report on The
Bell Curve's cognitive-partitioning thesis.20 Writing about the book in the Boston
Globe before its appearance, Anthony Flint made a balanced discussion of
both sides of the heritability debate.21 Robert S. Boyd of the Wichita Eagle's
Washington Bureau gives a balanced, factual review of the history of recent
genetic studies, and reviews the points of difference.22 Four commentaries
talk about the issues for their own sake without expressing an overall reaction
to the book, or else with only an incidental reaction. Michael Young and
Brigitte Burger in the National Review symposium, and Alexander Star and
Martin Peretz in The New Republic's symposium, which was generally
unfavorable, are of this sort.23

Also standing between the favorable and unfavorable pieces
are various mixed commentaries. James Powell's article in Insight is
favorable, mainly reporting the views contained in the book, except that the
headline ("New Ideas About Smarts Stand Logic on its Head") is
negative, possibly having been assigned to Powell's work by an unsympathetic
editor.24
Peter Passell's book review in the New York Times treats the book with
considerable respect, but is unfavorable toward the book's policy suggestions.25

Unfavorable Reactions

Unfavorable, but with reasoned
argument

Later, we will see a number of strongly unfavorable commentaries
that are purely vituperative. Many of the critics seem determined to warn other
academics against publicly supporting Murray and Herrnstein's thesis by
demonizing the two authors.However, a
number that are unfavorable present their case with reason and civility
(although civility should not be seen as precluding a vigorous articulation).
Richard Nisbett in The New Republic's symposium gives Herrnstein and
Murray credit for dealing with "extraordinarily important issues,"
but argues that the book contains "three assertions ... about race and
I.Q. that do not reflect the consensus of scholars," citing the genetic
basis for group differences, the intractability of IQ, and the belief that
group differences in IQ are not significantly reducible.26In one of the better
rebuttals, Ann Hulbert in the same symposium goes deeply into the substantive
issues, attacking the empirical analysis, citing the Flynn effect, pointing to
what she sees as inconsistencies, and taking issue with the book's policy prescriptions.27 E. D. Hirsch, Jr.'s,
column in the New York Times makes a civil discussion that contains no
personal attack on the authors or their sources, but that disagrees with
Herrnstein and Murray on the evidence for racial differences in
intelligence, citing counter-examples from situations where excellent education
is available.28
Columnist George Melloan in the Wall Street Journal uses emotive words
to debunk The Bell Curve but is fair in raising points from both sides.29

Other commentaries that can plausibly be placed in the same
category are those by B. A. Wilson, Kathryn Markel and Eric Oddleifson in the
letters-to-the-editor section of the Wall Street Journal, all on October
28. Wilson attacks the idea that an elite is becoming isolated, especially when
compared to what is called "the old `legacy' elite." Markel cites a
recent study that causes her to opt for more, not less, social intervention.
Eric Oddleifson argues the case for multiple intelligence and the consequent
insufficiency of a simple IQ score.30 Columnist Peter Shrag in the Baltimore
Sun goes so far as to deny that the study of race and intelligence is
"science," but observes that the study of those subjects feeds off of
the Left's own racial categorizing.31John Leo, in a column in the U. S. News
& World Report, is unfavorable on the ground that The Bell Curve
"is a very unhelpful book," providing no answers beyond
"pessimism and negative group labeling."32 In an article in the same issue of
that journal, William F. Allman covers the gamut of issues from a critical
perspective but without demonizing Herrnstein and Murray.33

Scott McConnell is reasoned in a
New York Post column
despite using some emotive language.34 A report in London's The Economist
by an unnamed author accuses the book as being political and opportunist, but
stays on a reasoned track despite its negative impressions.35A news article
quoting Jack Kemp, a Republican presidential aspirant in past years, indicates
that he is unfavorable, since he considers the ideas unpalatable and the book
"pseudo-scientific"; but he balances this with a reference to Murray
as "a man of honor and integrity."36

Four additional commentators round out the list in this
category. They are columnists Doug Hufnagel in the Camden Herald, Don
Munsch in the Denison (Texas) Herald, Sheldon Smith in the Milwaukee
Journal, and book reviewer Mary Meehan in the National Catholic
Register.37

Unfavorable, and cleverly

ad hominem

Frank Rich in his column in the
New York Times is
thoroughly critical, but turns a neat phrase, as when he writes of The Bell Curve's
having "enough equivocating for another 'Hamlet,'" or speaks of the
book's "air of unimpeachable authority, much as all those radar maps
impart meteorological gravity to Willard Scott."38 Josh Ozersky at
Notre Dame and St. Mary's College uses sardonic humor, presenting his column in
the form of a tongue-in-check battery of IQ test questions.39

Unfavorable without significant
argument but falling short of demonizing

Barbara Vobejda's article in the
Washington Post
paints an unfavorable picture without giving much content by surveying the commentaries
prior to late October and citing studies contrary to the Herrnstein-Murray
position, saying that the latter "brush them off."40A book review by an
unnamed author in the San Antonio Register says most social scientists disagree
with the view that genes are important to racial differences in IQ, but gives
little of its own reasoning.41 A column by Joyce Evans in the Milwaukee Sentinel is content simply to say that Herrnstein and Murray's ideas are
"unproved."42

Unfavorable, with heavily weighted
presentation, but still short of demonizing

To say that a piece stays "short of demonizing" is
to make a judgment about it that may or may not seem justified to others reading
the commentary. The reviews that are examined later that seek to
"demonize" Herrnstein and Murray seem a form of attempted
suppression, since a probable motive for extremely abusive commentary is to
punish the current authors and to "chill" the desire of future
researchers to extend the inquiry. Accordingly, we are not anxious to classify
a commentary into that category if there is any way to credit it as simply
being within the rough give-and-take that all authors dealing with sensitive public
issues must expect.

Debra Viadero in
Education Week makes several
substantive points about IQ, quoting from scholars whose views are contrary to
those of Herrnstein and Murray, in an effort to create the impression that The
Bell Curve is poorly founded.43 The same weighted technique is invoked by Anita Manning
in U.S.A. Today.44
She quotes a dean at Temple University to make a point that is essentially
anti-intellectual, since it does not accept inquiry on its merits: "I have
to ask why this issue is so enduring.Why
is it comforting ....?" In Time magazine, Richard Lacayo weights
his discussion by giving center stage to three selected social scientists, each
of whom takes a critical view of the book.45 Jim Holt's op-ed column in the New York
Times combines reasoned argument about discoveries in the "hard
science" of genetics with a heavy use of highly emotive terms to cast a strongly
negative pall: "psychometry ... has a long and farcical history ...
irrational convictions ... manure of pseudoscience and quackery."46 David Stipp's book
review in the Wall Street Journal and a bylined news article by John
Boudreau in California are unfavorably weighted by giving most of the say to
opponents.47

The fringe of pure vituperation is approached by seven
pieces that are highly unfavorable and whose argument seems, at least to this
author who is not an expert in the study of intelligence, as outside the
"reasoned" range. Readers will want to examine these to see whether
they agree. In the New York Times "Editorial Notebook," Brent
Staples recites a history of putatively stupid, biased IQ testing on Ellis
Island during World War I and in the 1920s. As to the heritability of
intelligence, he brushes it off as "a long-unproved claim" and as
supported by "no plausible data."48 In The New Republic's symposium,
Dante Ramos does not trouble to examine the evidence, but simply writes
off the finding that the average IQ of African blacks is 75 as "ridiculous."49 Neither does Stanley
Crouch in the same symposium consider the merits, simply ascribing extraneous
motives to the authors.50
Leon Wieseltier, who writes the longest of that symposium's commentaries, is
highly emotive and vituperative, taking up a number of issues in a personal and
ad hominem fashion, and starting with the assumption that Herrnstein and Murray
are wrong.51
Jason DeParle uses a chatty feature-story format for much of his article in the
New York Times Magazine.52 There is considerable emotive coloring, creating an
unfavorable image of Charles Murray, and a theme of amateur psychoanalyzing
(which, though mainly negative, ends with a certain empathy). He gets into the
issues on the merits in the final part of the article. Columnist Linda J.
Collier in the Philadelphia Tribune bases her piece on straw men by
using two important
misstatements of Herrnstein and Murray's positions.53 She speaks of their "theory that
whites are superior and that everyone else falls behind them" [overlooking
the high IQs accorded by the authors to several hundred million Asians], and
she asks "how come they assume that by looking at my face they can tell my
intellectual capacity with reasonable accuracy and precision?" [ignoring Herrnstein and Murray's emphatic
statement that nothing can be said about an individual because of statistics
relating to a group]. Robert N. Taylor in Kansas City is emotively unfavorable
without giving The Bell Curve's research a fair consideration.54

Very unfavorable: opposing scientific inquiry into race
and intelligence, or seeking to repress such research by demonizing it

A sizeable number of commentaries are purely vituperative.
Instead of reviewing them at this point, we will detail them in the discussion
(which follows) of the demand that research into such areas as behavioral
genetics, comparative intelligence, and eugenics should be suppressed, since
they seem calculated to place all such research "beyond the pale."

Taboo Versus Freedom of Inquiry

Early in the twentieth century it was openly accepted in the
United States and Europe to study -- and even to base social policy upon
findings relating to -- race, intelligence and eugenics. This was displaced,
however, by three developments: first, the disrepute attached to National
Socialist policies in respect to eugenics and race; second, the ideological
view taken by Stalinist Marxism which banned Mendelian genetics in favor of the
belief that human beings are wholly malleable and the product of their
environment; and, third, the ideological imperatives that arose in the United
States in the decades after World War II out of the Civil Rights movement, and
of the accompanying moral consensus, on behalf of blacks. A strong taboo
against the subjects of race and heredity resulted, except that work continued
in the scientific community, being drawn to occasional public attention by the
media when new findings resulted in eruptions of militant protest.

Scott McConnell in the
New York Post points out that
this taboo was intact in 1992 when former Fortune editor Daniel Seligman
authored "a judicious and highly readable book on IQ testing ... [which]
devoted a chapter to race and IQ, and came to conclusions similar to those of
Murray and Herrnstein." McConnell observes that the taboo was sufficiently
powerful to ensure that "this book was left unreviewed by the mainstream
media, and sank with barely a ripple. The taboos in this realm were still in
force." Asking what has caused the taboo to break down - and this is
perhaps the most significant thing about the widespread reaction to The Bell
Curve - McConnell points out that "it's hard not to notice how
virtually every aspect of social policy in America has been soaked with race
talk -- and that it has not been white conservatives who have been leading the way."55

In this context, part of the reaction to
The Bell Curve consists of an attempt by several authors to invoke the taboo and to seek to
punish Herrnstein and Murray and any others who now or in the future may
discuss such issues. Another part consists of a direct discussion of whether
there ought to be a taboo on the subject of race, heredity and intelligence, as
against freedom of inquiry. We will survey both of these reactions.

Reportorial review
of the opinions

Rod Dreher in the
Washington Times gives a brief
summary of the views of William J. Bennett, Jesse Jackson, James Q. Wilson,
Camille Paglia, Richard John Neuhaus, Michael Cromartie and Stanley Crouch
about whether the book should have been published.56 Bennett, Wilson, Paglia and Crouch are
quoted as favoring open discussion; Jackson and Neuhaus as not; and Cromartie
as thinking the publication unwise on Herrnstein and Murray's part.

Expressing
opposition to free inquiry

A news article by Howard Kurtz in the
Washington Post
tells about the rebellion that occurred within the editorial staff of The New
Republic when the editor, Andrew Sullivan, decided to publish a synopsis
written by Herrnstein and Murray.57 The rebellion led to the publication of the symposium,
mostly negative, that accompanied the synopsis, and in turn the symposium included
an airing of some of the participants' desire to continue the taboo. Glenn
Loury's piece asks why it is essential, as Herrnstein and Murray assert,
"for people to begin to talk openly." His arguments are prudential,
centering on the subject's "destructive" effects in the absence of
"useful action," and as such is a radical break from the a priori
"free speech as an absolute good" concept long endorsed by many on
the American Left. Neo-conservative Nathan Glazer's comments are along similar
lines, inquiring "to what end?" the subject should be discussed.
"What good will come of it?" His final sentence is breath-taking in
the American context: "I ask myself whether the untruth is not better for
American society than the truth." Black author Hugh Pearson says
Herrnstein and Murray should themselves have seen the destructiveness of their
inquiry and have held back from it.58

The authors in
National Review's symposium are, as we
will see, much more open to discussion. Nevertheless, Richard John Neuhaus
among them writes of the "questioning of taboos" as
"intellectual mischief" and says that "society depends upon
taboos and interdictions ... Why was it so necessary to speak this truth, if it
is truth, about racial differences in cognitive functioning?"He runs directly counter to John Stuart
Mill's argument in On Liberty that an open marketplace of ideas leads to
a better appreciation of truth: "There is an astonishing naivete in the
suggestion that we should have a nice, polite national conversation about the
alleged cognitive inferiority of blacks."59

Outside the symposia, John Sedgwick's long piece in
GQ
is mainly an exercise in emotive denunciations and ad hominem attacks, but does
at one point directly discuss the matter of a taboo, doing so in connection
with Philippe Rushton's work:"'Think
of an equivalent topic for scientific inquiry, like "Are Jews
Pushy?"' said Nicholas Lemann, author of The Promised Land ... 'Is
this an issue that should be put out on the table?' Race relations are so
fragile that it is impossible to discuss them without immense tact ...."60 Jason DeParle in the
New York Times Magazine quotes sociologist Christopher Jencks as saying that
there is a "striking dearth of evidence" about how physical brain
processes differ by race and that "this seems to me a case where you ought
to have really airtight evidence before you make claims."61

Opposition to publication on the ground that the book is
in error

Jencks' point edges close to the position taken by some
commentators that the Herrnstein-Murray position is flawed and should not have
been published for that reason. Eugene D. Genovese in the National Review
symposium argues that the book is "incoherent" because Herrnstein and
Murray "begin by rejecting 'race' as a category that will not stand
scientific analysis," but then use it anyway. "Exactly what, we may
ask, is the subject of this discussion?"62 Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's review in the Washington
Post is a fair-minded discussion, but cites a "profound
schizophrenia" within the book about the isolation of the cognitive elite, since Herrnstein and Murray "bemoan
the segregation of IQ among the elite" but then "complain that
businesses cannot use IQ as a selection device." He speaks of the
"moral dilemma" over publication and asks "which principle
should take precedence in this case?," to which he answers "I must
confess, I am still confused."63 The tone taken by columnist Sally Steenland
for the Knight-Ridder newspapers is very different, since she accords
Herrnstein and Murray no respect, calling them "glib" and "not
very smart," but she nevertheless cites reasons from her experience as a
teacher for thinking that "standardized IQ tests did not begin to capture
[the students'] native intelligence."64

Condemnation and suppression of the subject by
demonization

Several commentaries, while citing all sorts of reasons for
their position, are so vituperative and give so little respect to Herrnstein
and Murray as engaged in legitimate inquiry that they are best categorized as
attempts to suppress thought and discussion in the subjects covered by the
book. Authors in controversial areas must be prepared for considerable abuse as
part of a vigorous debate, which they can't always expect to be
conducted with courtesy; but abuse beyond a certain point is arguably an effort
to coerce and to silence. Just where that point is crossed is a matter of judgment.

Here are a few of such commentators' denunciations,
necessarily abstracted from the various contexts raised by their pieces:

. Jacob Weisberg in
New York: "... about as toxic
as social science gets ... grist for racism of every variety. You can hear a thousand
David Dukes in the background ...."65

. Alan Wolfe in The New Republic's
symposium: "... obsessed by race ... if they said what they meant, their
ideas would come across as not only racist, but also nutty ... inegalitarian,
ungenerous and reactionary ... the nasty side ...."67

. John B. Judis in The New
Republic's symposium: "... not based on science, but on a combination
of bigotry and metaphysics ... pseudo-scientific racism."68

. Editorial in New York Times:
"... flame-throwing treatise ... political ideologue ... long and sordid
history ... bigots ... aura of scientific certitude ... Though [it] contains
serious scholarship, it is also laced with tendentious interpretation ...
chilling conclusions ... an act of advocacy."69

. Dorothy Gilliam in the Washington
Post: "... the type of racist drivel Murray, Herrnstein, et al., put
forth as science ... not accord it the dignity given to honest thought."70

. James Ridgeway in The Village
Voice: The cover illustration shows a monster-like Charles Murray eating
the head of a black on a plate and carries the heading "Racism Gets
Respectable." The article's language: "... racialist ideas ... attack
on American democracy ... scientific racism ... greed, in the name of
excellence ...."71

. Columnist Carl Rowan: "...
orgy ... arrogant 'social scientist' ... bogus science ... drones on and on ...
pseudo-scientists ... have written an excuse for the white majority ... Adolf
Hitler's anti-Semitism ... The Murray-Herrnstein book is just another curse...."72

. Rev. Jesse Jackson, president of
National Rainbow Coalition: "It is an attempt to give intellectual
standing and political footing to conservative public policies and social
programs of repression and/or neglect ... All such superior and inferior
theories are garbage! ... pseudo-scientific theories."73

Other commentaries that this author would classify in this
category are listed in the footnote.74

Some of the articles, joined by one national television
broadcast, make their attack in the form of elaborate investigative or historical
accounts of what they consider the "sordid" researchers cited in The
Bell Curve. Theyattack, at the same time,a New York foundation that funded some of the
research cited in the book, as well as a 35 year old anthropology journal, The
Mankind Quarterly, in which many of the researchers cited by the authors
had published.75
Those attacks, profoundly ad hominem, need to be considered on their merits and
are beyond the scope of this report.

Commentators who assert the rights of inquiry and
discussion

In opposition to the reactions just discussed, a few authors
took their stand in favor of free research and discussion.

Those who spoke up against the "demonization" of
inquiry into the significance of heredity and race differences include Samuel Francis,
Thomas Sowell and Daniel Seligman. Referring to "smears and outright
personal attacks," Francis says that "what is striking about the
'discussion' is its utter banality and fundamental viciousness ...."76 Sowell observes that
"what we are seeing now is the beginning of a campaign for the moral
extermination of Charles Murray ...."77 Seligman writes: "It is clear enough what
The Bell Curve's liberal critics want. They want its ideas suppressed.
They want the data to go away. They want the authors depicted as kooks and
extremists."78

One of the strongest voices for open inquiry is Ed Koch,
former mayor of New York City. Speaking of the attempts to silence conservatives
on "talk radio," he says that "these efforts to intimidate ...
are outrageous. They have to be more than just resisted - they have to be
defeated ... The effort by black and white ideologues to repress the speech of
others they find disagreeable or repugnant is also currently focused on Charles
Murray."79
Columnist Rory Leishman in London, Ontario, relates his argument to the attempts
by the Ontario Human Rights Commission to silence Professor Philippe Rushton:
"The Ontario Human Rights Commission is a mockery ... Academic freedom is
essential to a democracy ... What is happening to our country? Who would have
thought five years ago that university professors would soon be less free to
express and debate their ideas in Ontario than in Russia?"80

Some commentators make it clear that they support the rights
of inquiry and speech even though they have significant disagreement with Herrnstein
and Murray. Even though he speaks of "a thesis unhelpful to race
relations," William Safire asks "should such analysis be banned, its
author condemned as a bigot?," answering "No; we follow inquiry
wherever it leads."81Pat Shipman in National Review's
symposium says Herrnstein and Murray's "prognosis is one we must take
seriously, whether or not we accept their interpretations of the IQ data."82The editorial that
prefaces The New Republic's symposium refers to the argument that "even to conceive of genetically
influenced ethnic differences in I.Q. is racist" and says that "this
is an intolerable orthodoxy ... To say that a debate simply cannot be had is to
enforce a taboo utterly at odds with free inquiry."83

Others who argue in favor of discussion are listed in the
footnote.84
Randall Kennedy in The New Republic's symposium is probably the most
marginal of those opposing a taboo, basing his opinion on a view that sometimes
is used to point to the futility of suppressing pornography: "Attempting to muzzle [Murray] will only give
the book additional, bankable publicity."85

Specific Issues
Discussed

This report will not be able to survey more than cursorily
the many issues that are discussed in the commentaries, but it is helpful lto
give some indication of their content.

What is “science”?

As has been apparent from the denunciations, several authors
contend that the research into intelligence, genetics and race is not truly
science, but is "pseudo-science."86 None of these are, however, in-depth
discussions of the nature of scientific inquiry.

The nature of intelligence

Herrnstein and Murray include a detailed discussion of the
competing theories of intelligence in the introduction to The Bell Curve.
The debate concerning intelligence and intelligence testing is a major source
of material for those condemning The Bell Curve, with attacks on the
concept of "g" (for general intelligence),87 arguments for
multiple intelligence,88 and other discussion questioning both the validity and utility of the
data provided by IQ tests.89

Whether IQ tests are culturally biased

There is a long-established dispute as to the extent to
which various IQ tests are "culture-free," as raised by many who condemn
The Bell Curve. Thomas Sowell says that culture does count, and so finds
no basis for objecting that intelligence tests are "culturally
relative."90
Columnists Josh Ozersky, James Strong and Linda J. Collier, however, raise the
cultural relativity argument against the tests.91 Brigitte Burger
gives a specific spin to the cultural relativity point when she says that IQ tests
don't really measure intelligence, but "rather, they measure what I have
called 'modern consciousness,' a set of intellectual skills that are
particularly relevant to operating in the highly specialized worlds of modern
technology and rationalistically organized bureaucracies."92

The reliability of intelligence tests

Jacob Weisberg says that "no test can measure
creativity or originality," and adds that "the most obvious argument
against the validity of IQ is the fact that scores change."93 Leon Kamin says that
tests are manipulated to produce the results that the test-makers expect:
"The Stanford-Binet revision of 1937, until fiddling, gave girls much higher
I.Q.'s than boys."94 Other commentators point to alleged abuses
of testing during the first half of the twentieth century to indicate an
unreliable foundation for the tests.95Others discussing IQ tests as such are
listed in the footnote.96

The role of heredity in determining IQ

Columnist James Strong declares that genes play no part in
determining intelligence, and Jacob Weisberg argues that "the case for a
genetic basis of IQ is flimsy."97 Brent Staples says the
connection is "long unproved," with "no plausible data."98
The New York Times editorializes that the evidence is inconclusive.99 Anthony Flint's
article in the Boston Globe gives both sides of the heritability issue.100

Much of the discussion centers on the question of group
differences in intelligence. Richard Nisbett says that "to invoke
different patterns of abilities as evidence of a genetic basis for group
differences is utterly unfounded."101 Some accept the thesis that IQ is
increasing through the generations, and see in that a reason to doubt
genetically determined group differences.102Still more take up the issue of whether
there are genetically determined racial differences in cognitive ability:
Charles Krauthammer sees no basis for them; an unnamed author in the San
Antonio Register asserts that most social scientists agree that
environment, not genes, causes racial differences; Pat Shipman says that
male-female studies suggest that differences are environmental; Andrew Hacker
thinks Herrnstein and Murray biased for focusing on black-white differences
when they aren't inquiring into such differences as may exist among sub-groups
of whites (such as the Irish, Jews, etc.); and E. D. Hirsch, Jr.,cites a lack
of racial differences in situations where excellent education is available.103

Whether individual or group cognitive ability is subject
to improvement through intervention

Daniel Seligman speaks of a growing belief among the
literate public in limitations on the malleability of human beings, such as with
respect to homosexuality where it is said that the preference is
"immutable, not a personal choice," although he says that genes
should be understood as creating "probabilities, not destiny."104 Most of the authors
in this survey who commented on the subject, though, argued for malleability
(which bears directly on whether social interventions are beneficial).105

Role
of factors other than intelligence in causing success

Many commentators take issue with Herrnstein and Murray's
stress on intelligence, arguing that a number of other factors play important
roles in whether an individual succeeds. In Newsweek, columnist Jerry
Adler has a delightful piece which, by playing on the value of "good
looks," makes the serious point that IQ is just one factor among others.106 Patrick J. Buchanan
points to character and courage; William Safire to motivation, stamina and
family values; Michael Young to moral intelligence, virtue, mobility; Brigitte
Berger to empathy, sense of humor, religious commitment; Don Munsch to ambition
and diligence.107Other authors speaking to this issue are listed in the footnote.108

The “cognitive partitioning” thesis that society is
becoming bifurcated by intelligence

Among those who look at the idea of "cognitive
partitioning" in general terms are William F. Buckley, who expresses
skepticism over what he likens to grand projections in the vein of Malthus and
Marx; columnist Gil Spencer, who makes light of the Murray-Herrnstein thesis
without any careful examination; and columnist Richard Grenier, who is not
persuaded that anything apocalyptic is impending.109

As to the isolation of a cognitive elite, Patrick J.
Buchanan opines that it will be neither exclusive nor dominant.110 Michael Novak, on
the other hand, believes The Bell Curve's data "make a strong
case" that a cognitive elite exists that is increasingly experiencing
isolation and loss of realism.111 B. A. Wilson thinks it is inconsistent to be concerned
about the isolation of a cognitive elite, when the "old 'legacy'
elite" was also isolated.112

At the other end of the social scale, Henry Louis Gates,
Jr., says that there is a partitioning between the black middle class and the
black underclass, and takes a strongly environmentalist position by arguing
that this is caused by cutbacks in federal programs rather than by genetic
variations within the group.113

Whether low intelligence contributes to the rise of social
pathology

Surprisingly, the causes of the social pathology to which
Herrnstein and Murray devote several chapters receive relatively little attention
in the early reactions, although James Q. Wilson in the National Review
symposium discusses the causes of criminality.114

Whether there is a dysgenic trend

Thomas Sowell's article in
The American Spectator gets into this issue most, referring to the theory that intelligence is
actually increasing generation by generation and saying that "the
implications of such rising patterns of mental test performance is devastating
to the central hypothesis of those who have long expressed the same fear as
Herrnstein and Murray, that the greater fertility of low-IQ groups would lower
the national (and international) IQ over time." This is a rational
argument that requires a response from those who support The Bell Curve.
More than any other argument, the validity of the so-called Flynn-effect (the
hypothesis that intelligence is rising rather than falling) challenges the
entire Herrnstein/Murray thesis. 115

What the policy implications should be

Little, if any, support is articulated for
The Bell Curve's
recommendation for a conservative approach to the welfare state.Charles Krauthammer discusses it, but says
that, preferring a color-blind society, he opposes any kind of
multiculturalism, even a conservative one in which "each ethnicity finds
its honored niche."116

Those who speak up on the policy implications are heavily in
favor of continued social intervention to address problems in American society.
Jacob Weisberg says that it can just as easily be inferred that interventions
should be doubled as to conclude that they should be dropped; Nathan Glazer
says American society cannot afford to adopt a purely meritocratic approach,
and must consider group representation; Loren E. Lomasky in the National
Review symposium says Murray's cost-benefit analysis in Losing Ground was better than the pessimism introduced by a consideration of IQ, and although
Lomasky does argue for a meritocratic vision (using professional basketball as
an example), he believes a realistic social policy can point toward raising the
abilities of the less fortunate even if complete social parity is impossible;
Dante Ramos argues that "clan pride" would worsen the black
condition; Alan Wolfe says it is a mistake to focus on raising IQs, since a
broader goal of raising "life's chances" is achievable; and Jason
DeParle would expand rather than contract government efforts.117 Others commenting
on the policy implications are listed in the footnote.118

The perceived impact on "liberal myths"

It is evident to several commentators that the views
expressed in The Bell Curve, if accepted, undercut the main premises of contemporary
American "liberalism." David Brooks points to the views'
incompatibility with "the holy troika of race, class and gender
studies" that "assert discrimination and oppression."119Michael Barone in
the National Review symposium welcomes the undercutting of the rationale
for "victimization," which in turn serves as the justification for
racial quotas.120
Michael Novak sees that the destruction of these foundational beliefs can lead
to a religious-type crisis within liberalism by destroying its adherents' hopes.121

Perception of weaknesses and inconsistencies in The
Bell Curve

Alan Ryan in the
New York Review of Books believes
that the psychometric research by Herrnstein and the social philosophy of
Charles Murray are disconnected, arguing that the policy implications are not
supported by the IQ analysis. He sees inconsistencies in arguing for the
intractability of IQ and then complaining about the dumbing-down of bright
children; in arguing that affirmative action causes an inferiority complex in
poor students but not seeing a similar effect within the old "legacy"
system (where not-so-bright young men from families of high social standing
made it through the Ivy League schools); and in asserting that there is a
dysgenic trend while citing evidence that IQ levels are rising.122Christopher
Caldwell in The American Spectator is strongly favorable to Herrnstein
and Murray, but says that their many efforts at "hedging and
conciliating" are "nonsense."123

Miscellaneous matters of content

As may be expected from such a quantity of writing, there
are some notable non sequiturs, straw-man fallacies, and extreme factual
postulates, in addition to much fine thought. Perhaps the worst non sequitur
is
that quoted by Nina J. Easton in the Los Angeles Times from President
Clinton's October 1994 press conference: "Clinton said: 'I disagree with
the proposition that there are inherent racially biased differences in the
capacity of the American people to reach their full potential ... It goes
against our entire history and our whole tradition.'" This same non
sequitur is expressed by former HUD secretary Jack Kemp, a Republican: "I
don't like telling people that are poor or low-income that it's a perpetual
condition ... I think that is offensive to the American dream that I was
taught."124There
is, of course, no relationship between whether a factual proposition is true (or
false) and whether someone wants it to be true (or false).

Arguably the most extreme factual postulate put forth by any
of the commentators is the suggestion by columnist Eugene Brown in the Michigan
Daily (University of Michigan) that the ancient Egyptians, with their
contributions in mathematics, philosophy and architecture, were black.125It is possible that
here, too, the wish is father to a belief as to fact.

Editor's Note:
The following notes not only indicate
the source of each reference, but also constitute a bibliography of the
commentaries upon which this article is based.

23. Michael Young,
National Review, December 5, 1994;
Brigitte Burger, National Review, December 5, 1994; Alexander Star, The
New Republic, October 31,1994; Martin Peretz, The New Republic, October 31,
1994.

75. See John Sedgwick, article,
GQ, November 1994;
Adam Miller, article, Rolling Stone, October 20, 1994; Charles Lane,
article, New York Review of Books, December 1, 1994; James Ridgeway, article,
The Village Voice, November 15, 1994; and the national television
feature Dateline NBC on November 22, 1994.

95. See Brent Staples,
New York Times "Editorial
Notebook," October 28, 1994; James Strong, column, St. Louis American,
November 3, 1994; John Boudreau, bylined news article, Valley Times
(Pleasanton, CA), November 7, 1994.

117. Jacob Weisberg, article,
New York, October 17,
1994; Nathan Glazer, National Review, December 5, 1994; Loren E.
Lomasky, National Review, December 5, 1994; Dante Ramos, The New
Republic, October 31, 1994; Alan Wolfe, The New Republic, October
31, 1994; Jason DeParle, article, New York Times Magazine, October 9,
1994.